V. I. Lenin

Notes On The Tasks Of Our Delegation At The Hague[1]

Written:4 December, 1922First Published:PravdaNo, 96, April 26, 1924; Signed: Lenin; Published according to a typewritten copy corrected and signed by LeninSource:Lenin’sCollected Works, 2nd English Edition, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965,Volume 33, pages 447-451Translated:David Skvirsky and George HannaTranscription\HTML Markup:David Walters&R. CymbalaCopyleft:V. I. Lenin Internet Archive (www.marx.org) 2002. Permission is granted to copy and/or distribute this document under the terms of theGNU Free Documentation License

On the question of combating the danger of war, in connection
    with the Conference at The Hague, I think that the greatest difficulty lies
    in overcoming the prejudice that this is a simple, clear and comparatively
    easy question.

“We shall retaliate to war by a strike or a revolution” that
    is what all the prominent reformist leaders usually say to the working
    class. And very often the seeming radicalness of the measures proposed
    satisfies and appeases the workers, co-operators and peasants.

Perhaps the most correct method would be to start with the sharpest
    refutation of this opinion; to declare that particularly now, after the
    recent war, only the most foolish or utterly dishonest people can assert
    that such an answer to the question of combating war is of any use; to
    declare that it is impossible to “retaliate” to war by a strike,
    just as it is impossible to “retaliate” to war by revolution in
    the simple and literal sense of these terms.

We must explain the real situation to the people, show them that war is
    hatched in the greatest secrecy, and that the ordinary workers’
    organisations, even if they call themselves revolutionary organisations, are
    utterly helpless in face of a really impending war.

We must explain to the people again and again in the most concrete manner
    possible how matters stood in the last war, and why they could not have been
    otherwise.

We must take special pains to explain that the question of “defence
    of the fatherland” will inevitably arise, and that the overwhelming
    majority of the working people will inevitably decide it in favour of their
    bourgeoisie.

Therefore, first, it is necessary to explain what “defence of the
    fatherland” means. Second, in connection with this, it is necessary to
    explain what “defeatism” means. Lastly, we must explain that the
    only possible method of combating war is to preserve existing, and to form
    new, illegal organisations in which all revolutionaries taking part in a war
    carry onprolongedanti-war activities—all this must be
    brought into the forefront.

Boycott war—that is a silly catch-phrase. Communists must take part
    in every war, even the most reactionary.

Examples from, say, pre-war German literature, and in particular, the
    example of the Basle Congress of 1912, should be used as especially concrete
    proof that the theoretical admission that war is criminal, that socialists
    cannot condone war, etc., turn out to be empty phrases, because there is
    nothing concrete in them. The masses are not given a really vivid idea of
    how war may and will creep up on them. On the contrary, every day the
    dominant press, in an infinite number of copies, obscures this question and
    weaves such lies around it that the feeble socialist press is absolutely
    impotent against it, the more so that even in time of peace it propounds
    fundamentally erroneous views on this point. In all probability, the
    communist press in most countries will also disgrace itself.

I think that our delegates at the International Congress of Co-operators
    and Trade Unionists should distribute their functions among themselves and
    expose all the sophistries that are being advanced at the present time in
    justification of war.

These sophistries are, perhaps, the principal means by which the
    bourgeois press rallies the masses in support of war; and the main reason
    why we are so impotent in face of war is either that we do not expose these
    sophistries beforehand, or still more that we, in the spirit of the Basle
    Manifesto of 1912, waive them aside with the cheap, boastful and utterly
    empty phrase that we shall not allow war to break out, that we fully
    understand that war is a crime, etc.

I think that if we have several people at The Hague Conference who are
    capable of delivering speeches against war in various languages, the most
    important thing would be to refute the opinion that the delegates at the
    Conference are opponents of war, that they understand how war may and will
    come upon them at the most unexpected moment, that they to any extent
    understand what methods should be adopted to combat war, that they are to
    any extent in a position to adopt reasonable and effective measures to
    combat war.

Using the experience of the recent war to illustrate the point, we must
    explain what a host of both theoretical and practical questions will arise
    on the morrow of the declaration of war, and that the vast majority of the
    men called up for military service will have no opportunity to examine these
    questions with anything like clear heads, or in a conscientious and
    unprejudiced manner.

I think that this question must be explained in extraordinary detail, and
    in two ways:

First, by relating and analysing what happened during the last war and
    telling all those present that they are ignorant of this, or pretend that
    they know about it, but actually shut their eyes to what is the very pivot
    of the question which must be understood if any real efforts are to be made
    to combat war. On this point I think it is necessary to examine all the
    opinions and shades of opinion that arose among Russian socialists
    concerning the last war. We must show that those shades of opinion did not
    emerge accidentally, but out of the very nature of modern wars in
    general. We must prove that without an analysis of these opinions, without
    ascertaining why they inevitably arise and why they are of decisive
    significance in the matter of combating war—without such an analysis
    it is utterly impossible to make any preparations for war, or even to take
    an intelligent stand on it.

Secondly, we must take the present conflicts, even the most
    insignificant, to illustrate the fact that war may break out any day as a
    consequence of a dispute between Great Britain and France over some point of
    theft treaty with Turkey, or between the U.S.A. and Japan over some trivial
    disagreement on any Pacific question, or between any of the big powers over
    colonies, tariffs, or general commercial policy, etc., etc. It seems to me
    that if there is the slightest doubt about being able at The Hague to say
    all we want to say against war with the utmost freedom, we should consider
    various stratagems that will enable us to say at least what is most
    important and to publish in pamphlet form what could not be said. We must
    take the risk of our speaker being stopped by the chairman.

I think that for the same purpose the delegation should consist not only
    of speakers who are able, and whose duty it shall be, to make speeches
    against war as a whole, i.e., to enlarge on all the main arguments and all
    the conditions for combating war, but also of people who know all the three
    principal foreign languages, whose business it shall be to enter into
    conversation with the delegates and to ascertain how far they understand the
    main arguments, what need there is to advance certain arguments and to quote
    certain examples.

Perhaps on a number of questions the mere quoting of facts of the last
    war will be sufficient to produce serious effect. Perhaps on a number of
    other questions serious effect can be produced only by explaining the
    conflicts that exist today between the various countries and how likely they
    are to develop into armed collisions.

Apropos of the question of combating war, I remember that a number of
    declarations have been made by our Communist deputies, in parliament and
    outside parliament, which contain monstrously incorrect and monstrously
    thoughtless statements on this subject. I think these declarations,
    particularly if they have been made since the war, must be subjected to
    determined and ruthless criticism, and the name of each person who made them
    should be mentioned. Opinion concerning these speakers may be expressed in
    the mildest terms, particularly if circumstances require it, but not a
    single case of this kind should be passed over in silence, for
    thoughtlessness on this question is an evil that outweighs all others and
    cannot be treated lightly.

A number of decisions have been adopted by workers’ congresses
    which are unpardonably foolish and thoughtless.

All material should be immediately collected, and all the separate parts
    and particles of the subject, and the whole #8220;strategy” to be
    pursued should be thoroughly discussed at a congress.

On such a question, not only a mistake, but even lack of thoroughness on
    our part will be unpardonable.

December 4, 1922

[1]The
    Hague International Peace Congress,December 10-15, 1922, was convened
    by the Amsterdam International Federation of Trade Unions as a result of
    pressure brought to bear by the working class with the purpose of combating
    the threat of another world war. The Soviet delegation, invited to the
    congress on the demand of revolutionary trade unions and co-operatives in
    face of the resistance of the opportunist majority at the congress, set
    forth the tasks of the proletariat with regard to war. It spoke in the
    spirit of the suggestions given to it by Lenin. The congress rejected the
    programme of action proposed by the Soviet delegation.